Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mitchell v. Mitchell

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

December 4, 2019

Dupree Armand Mitchell, Plaintiff,
v.
Shirely Mitchell, et al., Defendant.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          RENEE HARRIS TOLIVER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case was referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition. The Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review of the relevant pleadings and applicable law, this case should be summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On October 1, 2019, Mitchell filed a rambling, 36-page, amended complaint that is clearly irrational. In it, he never states a cause of action or alleges any coherent facts from which the Court can discern a cognizable cause of action. See Doc. 7, passim. Mitchell subsequently filed two other unintelligible pleadings in this case. See Doc. 8; Doc. 9.

         II. ANALYSIS

         Because Mitchell is seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute provides for the sua sponte dismissal of a complaint if the Court finds that it (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous when it is based on an indisputable meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are “clearly ‘baseless.'” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). The latter category encompasses allegations that describe “fanciful, fantastic, and delusional” scenarios, or that “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” Id. at 33.

         The Court must always liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (noting pro se pleadings “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”); Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). Even under this most liberal construction, however, Mitchell's has failed to state a cognizable claim or anything that can be construed as such. Moreover, his factual contentions are woefully inadequate to support any legal claim, see Denton, 504 U.S. at 33, and his allegations appear irrational and incredible Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.

         III. LEAVE TO AMEND

         Ordinarily, a pro se plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his complaint prior to dismissal. However, leave to amend is not required when plaintiff “has already pleaded his ‘best case.'” Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). As discussed herein, Mitchell has already filed an amended complaint; still, his apparent claims are fatally infirm. Based on the most deferential review of his pleadings, it is unlikely that, even if given the opportunity, he could allege cogent and viable legal claims. Thus, the Court concludes that granting leave to amend under these circumstances would be futile and cause needless delay.

         IV. CONCLUSION

         For the foregoing reasons, this action should be summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. See28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         SO RECOMMENDED.

         INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

         A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.